If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

When a member of the activist group Code Pink stood up and insisted Pelosi brush up on her reading regarding evidence of the Bush administration's long list of alleged constitutional violations, Pelosi reacted angrily.

"I take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't tell me that I don't do that,” Pelosi said, using hand gestures to emphasize her disdain over the impeachment demands.

Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium and turned him over to officers with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance Wednesday at a West Los Angeles college to discuss her recently published book was marred by dozens of protestors and several angry outbursts by audience members who demanded Pelosi immediately authorize a House committee to hold impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush.

The Speaker made it clear she would not support any effort to hold impeachment hearings against President Bush saying that the president "will be gone in a hundred days."

Halfway through her discussion at The American University of Judaism, where more than 300 people paid $30 each to hear Pelosi speak about her upbringing and her family's impact on her political career as detailed in her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, the topic shifted to Congress's historically low approval rating and how it reflected on Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker.

American University of Judaism's Rabbi Robert Wexler, who led the 75 minute interview, asked Pelosi to analyze a recent Rasmussen poll that found nine percent of individuals polled believed Congress was doing a good job, far lower than President Bush's overall approval rating.

Pelosi responded by defending her performance and the performance of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

"I preside over the greatest collection of integrity and idealism," Pelosi said.
snip

She said, in her opinion, the reason behind Congress’s low approval rating was largely due to the fact that Democrats could not muster up the votes to end the Iraq war, which the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco said she could not do much about because of the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in both Houses.

Wexler, however, continued to press Pelosi to elaborate on her response given that the Rasmussen poll suggested that a wide-range of issues beyond the Iraq war was responsible for Congress’s single-digit approval.

Pelosi, visibly flustered, said she was well aware that “much more work needs to be done.”

In November 2006, Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift the balance of power in Washington for the first time in 12 years.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

But Pelosi, who became House Speaker, never managed to exact the change she promised. She explained that she and her colleagues tried vigorously to pass legislation to end the war in Iraq.

"The public doesn’t want to know about process and 60 votes, they want outcomes, they want results," Pelosi said, explaining why Democrats could not end the war as promised prior to the midterm 2006 elections.

But Pelosi’s comments appeared disingenuous to many, since she was largely responsible for crafting an appropriations bill in backroom discussions with House Democratic leaders, passed in June, and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions on Iraq war benchmarks if Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill with little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

In fact, since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables that Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

When Pelosi launched into the reasons an administration led by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would be dangerous for the country, identifying the candidate's support for an endless war in Iraq and his intention to uphold many of the questionable constitutional interpretations relating to torture and civil liberties during the Bush administration, Pelosi said the only way to "dig our way out" is by electing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today."

Her response led Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, to demand Pelosi do her job and pursue impeachment hearings against President Bush for launching a war on false pretenses.

"Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet?

“One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments."

Pelosi seemed stunned by the outburst, but the way she addressed Thottam’s charges further fanned the flames and led to additional verbal protests over her decision not to hold the administration accountable for what many individuals in the audience believe are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by President Bush.

"Why don't you go picket the Republicans in Congress that will not allow us to have a vote on the war. This is not very effective. Not very effective."

"As Speaker of the house, the third highest office, first is the president, then vice president, and then Speaker, I take my responsibilities deadly seriously,” Pelosi said. “I try to promote bipartisanship but that's not what the other side wants."

Before Election 2006, Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, with Democrats hoping to gain additional seats in Election 2008, a similar political calculation applies, fearing a backlash against a last-minute drive to impeach Bush and Cheney. Bush knows that Pelosi long ago rejected impeachment proceedings, the one instrument included in the Constitution for Congress to wield against a President who has abused his powers.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s presentation, Pelosi signed books but refused to answer questions about her policy decisions.

The Public Record asked Pelosi whether she would authorize the full House to vote on contempt charges against former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Immediately following his query to Pelosi, The Public Record's Alan Breslauer was grabbed by Secret Service and dragged away from the table where Pelosi was signing copies of her book.

The Speaker did respond to Breslauer's question, however, saying a vote on contempt charges against Rove is "up to [House Judiciary Committee Chairman] Conyers."

Mrs. Pelosi,
People with 9% approval ratings have no right calling anyone a failure. Your leadership and your party’s majority over this current Congress is the biggest disaster in American History. Your rating is the lowest in American History. You guys STINK!!! Your lack of leadership, wisdom and utter gross incompetence is abysmal beyond belief. If you worked for me with this kind of productivity I would have your entire crew fired with extreme prejudice!! You haven’t done a thing worthwhile for the country the last two years. Nearly all of you are mediocrity personified. Your rating from the American people is F-— and we are looking forward to November and kicking your worthless hides out of office. You are the ones who have failed America and its people. Keep your eyes on the polls and watch the volcano that is going to erupt in your faces in November like Krakatoa. A yes it is going to be members of your own party that will send many in your majority to the unemployment line.

She's venting. Her book was a disaster and she needs a Hillary catharsis.

I suggest she do a Dean scream and just let it all out.

..................She Has Become A Huge Embarrassment

Given her position and votes on abortion and birth-control issues, she is not in good standing with the Catholic Church, despite what she may herself believe.

The Obama campaign has asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to shut her mouth, but in as nice a way as they possibly can. snip

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of.

She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe.

You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

According to several House Democrat leadership staffers, Pelosi grew increasingly angry several months ago that she was not being given a strategic role in directing the Democrat convention or being actively sought out by the Obama campaign for advice.

"She made a point that she was queen of the far left, which was the group that really helped Obama get to where he was," says Democrat leadership staffer, adding, "She didn't call herself a queen, but you get the point, and so did the Obama people."

Now Pelosi's big mouth has ensnared Obama in Catholic abortion issues, and campaign issues from four years ago that he wanted no part of and wasn't a part of just a week ago. Further, Pelosi's continued gaffes on the subject have renewed examination of Pelosi's poor standing in the Catholic Church.

Given her position and votes on abortion and birth-control issues, she is not in good standing with the Catholic Church, despite what she may herself believe.

Life begins at the point of conception.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Three Font Principle
............................................
This is by another author on the web (copied as it was from the web, so the spelling is not my own):

I thought it would be interesting to discuss, thought it might take some time to read. I encountered it while debating someone a while ago on the issue of birth control.

They had used the "3-font principle" to justify the use of artificial birth control.

To which I had commented (and you'll get this if you read the document):

Murder in self defense is justified because there is absolutely no way out (that is why the 3-font principle works with it).

However, birth control, even if the mother was to be put in the risk of dying (which was the case) during intercourse if conception and child birth were to occur due to NFP, is not justified because there is an out: .......abstinance!

Enjoy.

"In the middle of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican scholar and saint, proposed a method for moral diecision making that has been echoed parralleled, and adopted throughout the centuries (Summa Thelolgica I, II, Q. 18).

Vatican II attempts to revitalize this method. It is known as the three-font principle (or triple-font theory) because one must focus on three distinct components when discerning a moral question:
1) the act itself,
2) the circumstances,
3) the intention of the person contemplating the act.

When facing a new or confusing situation, it helps to look first at the action itself.

What are we thinking of doing?

Even before we add the circumstantial factors, a general judgment can be made that the act is initially good, bad, or neutral.

For example, giving someone a pleasant object, all things being equal, would be good. Punching someone in the face, all things being equal, would be bad. And shouting "hip, hip, hooray," all things being equal, would be neither good nor bad, but neutral.

But one's moral discernment cannot stop there. Let's take a look at Circumatances which include:

Who -&-amp; to Whom?, When?,
Where?, How?,
Forseeable consequences?,
Viable alternatives?.
Who is doing the act and to whom?

Whether the two are friends or foes and whether one has some justification for doing the deed to the other does make a difference.

The act of sex, which we would judge to be good at the act level, remains positive if done by a loving married couple.

It takes on quite a different value if it is sex violently forced upon another.......... we call such an act rape, and it is never morally justified.

When and Where is the action being done?

For example, loading a gun at rush hour on a crowded city bus is quite different from loading a gun on the opening day of hunting season out in the woods.

How one does a deed bespeaks the doer's attitude (e.g., concieted or humble) and is in some sense related to one's underlying intention or motives.

The term foreseeable consequences raises the issue of responsibility for the outcome, the various effects that my choice will have on others, not only those results that I desire but all anticipated side effects as well.

Are there viable alternatives?

If so, and if one or the other of those is more fruitful or less harmful, then surely

I would be obliged to take that course of action.

Now let's look at intention -why am I choosing to do the action? Our initial good action --giving someone a pleasant object-- might be done as an expression of love or friendship.

Giving a gift is a morally commendable thing to do. However, if that pleasant object is given as a bribe to an employee of my competitor's firm in order to garner favoritism or obtain classified information, then the very same act --giving someone a pleasant object-- is no longer morally justified.

In the same way, punching someone in the face because I'm a bully and don't like that person moves from being a bad act in itself to being judged morally wrong, because neither the circumstances nor my intention has changed our initial evaluation of the act.

However, if a person were having a seizure, flailinf his arms about, hurting others in the process, and even cutting himself on a window broken in his spasm, I might, regrettably, knock him on the jaw, rendering him unconscious.

While I don't think a punch in the mouth is a good medical technique, it may, in this unusual situation, be the morally right thing to do.

The just war tradition, for example, makes use of this kind of three font discussion in order to justify the bad acts of killing in wartime, provided the circumstances and right intention warrant the exception to the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

Finally, yelling Hip, hip, hooray at a sporting event is a good way to show support for one's team.

However, to tiptoe into a surgical operating room and shout it into the ear of the surgeon doing delicate microscopic brain surgery would be irresponsible, pootentially lethal, and morally wrong.

Therefore, the phrase "all things being equal", used at the act level, is either upheld or not upheld, depending on the circumstances and intention(s).

Moral decision making is not done mathematically.

This three-font principle is not meant to be a rigid formula, but it does assist us in asking the right questions, in making sure that we are not fooling ourselves, and in bringing to bear all of the pertinent data when facing a moral dilemma or a complex issue.

The sources we should use in making moral decisions (not necessarily in this order) are

[Doctor of the Church (Latin doctor, teacher, from Latin docere, to teach) is a title given by a variety of Christian churches to individuals whom they recognize as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their additions to theological or doctrinal matters.]

If McCain wins the election and the Repub Congress critters do not get swamped at the polls, I predict that San Fran Nan will be replaced as Majority speaker. Harry might also get the axe. Two super bitches, Nancy & Hillary, going down in flames.